Kerala High Court
Union Bank Of India vs M/S. Southern Cashew Exporters on 24 October, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.No.2388 of 2025 1 2025:KER:79459
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947
W.A.NO.2388 OF 2025
ARISING FROM ORDER DATED 26.09.2025 IN O.P.(DRT)NO.293
OF 2025 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, BRANCH-2, KOLLAM,
NK BUILDING, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM, PIN -
691001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASP.KURUP
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
SHRI.SIVA SURESH
SMT.B.SREEDEVI
SMT.ATHIRA VIJAYAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 M/S. SOUTHERN CASHEW EXPORTERS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.SHAMSUDEEN,
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMEDKUNJU, VIII /1092, O.S.
ROAD, CHANTHANATHOPPE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691014
2 M/S. FATHIMA CASHEW COMPANY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. BASHEER M., AGED
66 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMEDKUNJU, MOONLIGHT,
CHATHINAMKULAM, PERINAD, CHANTHANATHOPPE P.O,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691014
W.A.No.2388 of 2025 2 2025:KER:79459
3 M/S. M.M.K. EXPORTS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR M. ABDUL RAHIM, AGED
68 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMEDKUNJU, NIZAR MANZIL,
KUTTICHIRA, TKMC P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691014
4 M.SHAMSUDEEN,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMEDKUNJU, VIIL/1092, O.S. ROAD,
CHANTHANATHOPPE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691014
5 M. HAMSA,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMEDKUNJU, AJMAL MANZIL, CHANTHANATHOPPE
P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691014
6 M. SHARAFUDEEN,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMEDKUNJU, MMK RESIDENCY, CHANTHANATHOPPE
P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691014
7 M. KAMARUDEEN,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMEDKUNJU, AJMAL MANZL, CHANTHANATHOPPE
P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691014
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.2388 of 2025 3 2025:KER:79459
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The respondents in O.P.(DRT)No.293 of 2025, have filed this intra court appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the interim order dated 26.09.2025 of the learned Single Judge in O.P.(DRT)No.293 of 2025, which was one filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the respondents herein-writ petitioners seeking an order to set aside Ext.P7 order dated 16.09.2025 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II in I.A.No.3615 of 2025 in S.A.No.598 of 2025. The petitioners have also sought for an order compelling and commanding the respondents therein not to take recovery proceedings as per Ext.P4 possession notice dated 23.07.2025, till the final decision is taken by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II in S.A.No.598 of 2025.
2. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Ext.P7 order dated 16.09.2025 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in I.A.No.3615 of 2025 in S.A.No.598 of 2025 read thus;
"3. Considering the submissions made by the applicant and on perusal of the available materials on record, it appears W.A.No.2388 of 2025 4 2025:KER:79459 from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala passed in W.A.No.2114 of 2025 dated 27.08.2025 declined to defer the further proceeding in the securitization proceeding. No prima facie case is made out by the applicants to grant any interim relief in this case. Hence, I am not inclined to pass any interim order without giving opportunity to the other side.
4. Applicant is directed to serve copy of the SA/IA and all its annexure document to learned counsel for the defendant before the next date. List the case on 06.10.2025 for filing Vakalath, written statement and counter to IA."
3. On 26.09.2025, when this original petition came up for admission, the learned Single Judge stayed the operation of Ext.P7 order dated 16.09.2025 of the Tribunal in O.P(DRT)No.293 of 2025, for a period of one month. Challenging the said interim order, the appellants are before this Court in this writ appeal.
4. We heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-respondents and also the learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners.
5. In John V.O. v. Catholic Syrian Bank and others [2009 (1) KHC 337], a Division Bench of this Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of W.A.No.2388 of 2025 5 2025:KER:79459 India is not an original jurisdiction and therefore no writ appeal is maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act when the relief granted by the learned Single Judge is one exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 5 of the Act provides for intra court appeal only against an order passed by the learned Single Judge under the original jurisdiction.
6. In State Bank of India v. M/s. Kinship Services (India) (P) Ltd. [2013 (4) KHC 21] a Division Bench of this Court, after taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Kerlaker [(2009) 17 SCC 766], held that a writ appeal can be entertained under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 against the interim order dated 06.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.(DRT)No.2931 of 2013, staying confirmation of sale till further orders in respect of one item of property, which was sought to be sold in the auction scheduled to be held on 11.09.2013 under SARFAESI proceedings, since the nature of the interim relief granted by the learned Single Judge is nothing but a discretion exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution W.A.No.2388 of 2025 6 2025:KER:79459 of India.
7. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the interim order dated 26.09.2025 of the learned Single Judge in O.P.(DRT)No.293 of 2025, which is one issued in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not appealable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in John V.O. [2009 (1) KHC 337].
In such circumstances, this writ appeal fails on the ground of maintainability and the same is accordingly dismissed; however, after leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MIN
W.A.No.2388 of 2025 7 2025:KER:79459
APPENDIX OF WA 2388/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP DRT NO. 293/2025 DATED
23.9.2025
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED
24.9.2025 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS IN THE OP DRT 293/2025